This week, our discussion of the big and scary word “The Anthropocene” is nested within a larger theoretical/philosophical question about “what is reality?” In delving through many different readings which argued for a variety of interpretations of the human effect on the planet, we attempted to understand the breadth of categories under which writers and thinkers ascribe “the state of the planet.” In this discussion, we identified how different people categorize reality numerically, wither by counting to one, counting to two, or counting beyond two. In other words, we identified monism, dualism, and multiplicity within the course material and the world at large.
Examples of monism include outlooks like “we are all one” in a humanistic or deep ecology sense. It is the grouping together of all things under one category, a broad generalization that attempts to highlight greater truth. However, sweeping monisms like these tend towards an essentialism that is usually neither helpful nor accurate. In my own academic experience, counting to one is the first step in discovering nuance and multiplicity. Counting to one is an important analytical tool for discussing reality because it makes more obvious the things that do not belong.
Because our world is divided into dualities so often, counting to two was the most intuitive way to organize the perceived realities of this content. We see this in our political landscape. We see this in our gendered commodities. We see this in our introductory courses. We talk about classic vs. contemporary environmentalism, techno-optimism á la An Ecomodernist Manifesto vs. Limits to Growth apocalyptic-ism, scientific vs. spiritual environmental ethics, and many other delineations. These dualities, situated against one other, create a neat & tidy narrative of tension. There is a disagreement. There are two choices, and exactly two choices. By splitting a monism into two, we expand our options 100%. This is incredibly useful for communication and persuasion. If we are constantly only given two options, its likely we will eventually choose one or the other. Dualism is ingrained into our choices and reinforces itself.
As we reached the end of the week, counting beyond two was perhaps the greatest challenge. How do we account for more than two without any limits? And how do we describe myriad options with only one big word without creating a monism? Despite the conundrum posed by this endeavor, our tentative conclusion of the week was that counting beyond two was the most authentic, accurate, and valid way of approaching reality. It allows for many choices but avoids a relativist defeat. So far in our class, counting beyond two appears in the place-based replacement for the nature/culture binary (touched on briefly here). As my classmate Gabby writes in her post here, counting beyond two accounts for complexity and intersectionality in our world. Designing systems and communications around the principle of counting beyond two reflects that complexity back into our dialogue, media, and language.
The Anthropocene. All of the material from last week evaluated, described, rejected, or somehow engaged with this label of our current epoch. Those who believe in the Anthropocene believe that the Holocene is over and human beings now determine the workings of Earth’s systems. If so, wildness (as it is defined as something or somewhere untouched by human beings) no longer exists under the widespread effects of anthropogenic climate change. Certain academics, such as Eileen Crist and other deep ecologists, reject the Anthropocene as hubris, arguing a big “as if!” to the notion that humans could wield any control over the Earth at large. Others embrace the Anthropocene as an accomplishment of humanity and look forward with excitement to the technological inventions to come. Still others accept the Anthropocene as reality but fear that it implies the doom of human life and the severance of humans from nature.
The majority of this discourse does the following: 1) defines the Anthropocene in comparison to the Holocene, 2) places a value judgement on the Anthropocene, and 3) criticizes others’ value judgements. If we are to think “beyond two” as opposed to in a duality or monism, I wonder how assigning a sweeping character to the time and place of Earth by defining epochs is a helpful or accurate tool to situate ourselves in a reality. “Reality” becomes either the Holocene or the Anthropocene, and then either the “good” Anthropocene or the “bad” Anthropocene. Why does it (reality) have to be either/or? Can it somehow sometimes be both depending on the place and the weather and the tide? There is a heavy tone of absolutism within the discussions of the Anthropocene. I don’t yet see how our actions should change depending on which epoch we are “really” within. Is there a better, more “counting beyond two” way to evaluate the state of our planet? Since the Anthropocene is tied to the threats of climate change, perhaps using a place-based approach can help us identify the risks, strategies, cultures, and next steps of different places and peoples around the planet.
But then, when moving beyond theory like this, I have to ask: is counting beyond two always feasible? Is there a difference between “thinking beyond two” and “acting beyond two”? Here is a place where theory and practice collide. The unanswerable questions, one that might indeed frame our course, is this: how can theory and practice be negotiated in moments like these?